Estonia’s Interior Ministry proposed legislation on January 29, 2026, to ban Russian and Belarusian nationals without long-term residence permits from purchasing property in the country, widening restrictions that already apply in some locations and extending the planned ban to certain corporate structures.
The proposal targets Russian and Belarusian citizens who lack long-term residence permits and would also cover companies where such individuals are the ultimate beneficial owners, the ministry said.
Russian and Belarusian citizens who already hold long-term residence permits would retain full rights to buy, sell, inherit, and gift real estate under the proposal, the ministry said, drawing a line based on residency status rather than nationality alone.
Security rationale and scope
The ministry framed the move as a security measure tied to Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine and described it as part of a broader effort to limit risks linked to certain categories of foreign nationals who remain in Estonia temporarily or have arrived recently.
Officials estimated the proposal could affect approximately 10,000 foreign nationals, an impact figure that signals potential exposure to the new rule rather than a determination that any particular person would be barred in every case.
That estimate sits alongside land registry indicators that officials used to illustrate why they believe the planned restriction on purchasing property would matter.
Registry data indicate that around 1,000 Russian citizens with no clearly established ties to Estonia purchased real estate after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and these individuals lack Estonian personal identification codes typically issued with residence permits.
Residency markers, documentation, and distinction from forced sale
Those ID-code markers matter in practice because the proposal, as described by the ministry, turns heavily on whether a buyer has a long-term residence permit and how clearly their status and ties can be established through documentation that often accompanies lawful residence.
The figures also point to a common point of confusion in public debate: a restriction on new purchases differs from a forced-sale policy aimed at existing owners. The ministry described the initiative as a purchase restriction, and officials discussed it in terms of preventing new acquisitions rather than ordering existing owners to sell.
Because the scope extends beyond individual buyers to entities where targeted individuals are ultimate beneficial owners, ownership structure could determine whether a transaction falls inside or outside the planned ban even when the immediate purchaser is a company rather than a person.
Interior Minister’s justification
Interior Minister Igor Taro linked property acquisition to risks he said arise when people with unclear backgrounds, temporary presence, or recent arrival obtain access through real estate.
“We have significantly restricted the entry and stay of such citizens in Estonia, and it is logical that they should also not have the right to purchase real estate, since it can be used for intelligence and sabotage activities, including for preparing positions that could be used in crisis situations,” Taro said.
Taro’s statement set out the government’s core rationale: limiting entry and stay addresses one side of the security problem, while limiting purchasing property addresses another by restricting the ability to establish a foothold through real estate.
The minister’s reference to intelligence and sabotage framed the proposed ban not as an economic policy but as a risk-reduction step, with officials presenting property access as something that could support hostile activity or preparations during a crisis.
Connection to existing controls and geographic vs. residency focus
The Interior Ministry positioned the proposal as an extension of existing controls, arguing that the logic of restrictions on movement and presence should carry over into restrictions on purchasing property in Estonia.
Estonia already limits foreign property purchases in border regions and on small islands, but Taro argued those partial restrictions do not provide adequate protection and said the country should shift to outright bans.
The conceptual change is significant. Instead of restricting purchases based on geography—certain border areas and small islands—the proposed legislation would apply on a nationality and residency-status basis, focusing on Russian and Belarusian citizens without long-term residence permits regardless of where in Estonia the property sits.
Taro pointed to neighboring EU and NATO countries as examples for a shift toward broader restrictions, naming Finland, Norway, Sweden, Lithuania, and Latvia. He argued Estonia should follow those examples, while the ministry’s proposal still reflects Estonia’s own legal choices on scope, coverage, and exemptions.
Even when policymakers cite other countries’ approaches, each system can rely on different legal tests and exceptions. In Estonia’s case, the ministry’s description emphasized nationality, the presence or absence of long-term residence permits, and ultimate beneficial ownership as the key filters.
Historical context and strategic concerns
The proposal lands in a country where property ownership by Russian citizens has long been part of the public and political discussion. More than 40,000 property owners in Estonia are Russian Federation citizens, according to the Interior Ministry information cited in the announcement.
Earlier Interior Ministry findings also feature in the policy argument now being made. A 2022 Ministry of Interior report revealed that Russians and Belarusians own real estate near strategically important locations, including the Kalevi Panorama housing estate in Tallinn, which is located near the military campus and headquarters of the Estonian Defence Forces.
By highlighting proximity to a military campus and headquarters, the ministry pointed to location and access as central themes in its security rationale. In that framing, the concern is less about ownership in the abstract and more about ownership close to sensitive infrastructure and the potential for access that comes with it.
How the debate and drafting may evolve
That focus on proximity and concentration can shape how the proposal gets debated and drafted. A nationality- and residency-status-based ban on purchasing property would apply broadly, while the underlying security discussion often references particular types of places—strategically important locations—where access may carry heightened risk.
The ministry’s description did not set out detailed maps or separate exclusion zones in the announcement, and the proposal, as presented, leans on a general rule for a defined set of nationals without long-term residence permits rather than creating a new geography-based scheme.
The planned measure also interacts with everyday housing decisions and transactions, because purchasing property can range from buying an apartment in Tallinn to acquiring land outside major cities, and deals can be routed through companies as well as individuals.
For buyers and sellers, the corporate element is likely to matter as much as the individual rule. Because the restriction extends to companies where Russian or Belarusian citizens without long-term residence permits are ultimate beneficial owners, parties to a deal may need to look beyond the buyer name on a contract and consider who controls the purchasing entity.
Practical implications for transactions and due diligence
In practice, that can raise due diligence expectations during the period when the proposal moves through drafting, parliamentary review and eventual implementation. Sellers may seek added assurances about the buyer’s eligibility, and buyers may need to document long-term residence status or demonstrate that targeted individuals do not sit at the top of the ownership chain.
Transactions already in progress can face timing risk when rules change between offer and completion. Without changing the announced scope, parties can still adjust how they allocate risk in a contract, including conditions tied to eligibility to purchase property if the legal framework shifts during the closing process.
The ministry’s description of protected rights for long-term residence permit holders provides a clear signal for one group. Russian and Belarusian citizens with long-term residence permits would retain the ability to buy, sell, inherit, and gift real estate, the proposal says, meaning the restriction aims at a specific cohort rather than imposing a blanket ban on all Russian or Belarusian citizens.
That distinction could become central in the legislative process, because the practical effect of the proposal depends on how lawmakers define the long-term residence permit category and what evidence counts as proof for purposes of a real estate transaction.
Another watch point is the breadth of the term “purchasing property,” especially because the proposal explicitly mentions rights to inherit and gift real estate for long-term residence permit holders. The final legal text could clarify how different transfer types are treated for those without long-term residence permits and whether any transitional rules apply to deals already underway.
How lawmakers handle entities and ultimate beneficial ownership will also shape compliance. The ministry’s intent, as described, is to reach purchases that would otherwise be routed through companies, making definitions and enforcement mechanisms a central part of how the proposal works day to day.
The Interior Ministry described the initiative as proposed legislation, and that status matters for anyone trying to plan a move, a housing purchase, or an investment linked to Estonia’s property market. Proposals can change during drafting and parliamentary debate, and implementation details can determine how the rule works in practice.
For Russian and Belarusian citizens who do not have long-term residence permits and are considering purchasing property, the announcement sets an immediate planning question: whether to proceed with a transaction while the proposal advances, and whether to account for the possibility that eligibility could change before completion.
For long-term residence permit holders, the ministry’s language points in a different direction. By explicitly preserving rights to buy, sell, inherit, and gift real estate, the proposal as presented signals continuity in property rights even as the government seeks to block new purchases by those it describes as higher risk.
Taro’s argument that existing border-region and small-island restrictions fall short suggests the government wants a broader rule that does not depend on geography. The ministry’s emphasis on security risks tied to “unclear backgrounds,” temporary presence, and recent arrivals sets the frame for how the proposal will be defended as it advances.
“We have significantly restricted the entry and stay of such citizens in Estonia, and it is logical that they should also not have the right to purchase real estate, since it can be used for intelligence and sabotage activities, including for preparing positions that could be used in crisis situations,” Taro said.
